I would like to know more the difference between the quality of both the Leica 90 f 2.0 Summicron (before the 90AA) and the 90 f 2.0 Summicron Asph Apo,since both are well-known all over the world. Does the Leica 90 Summicron f 2.0 is much more suitable for portraiture photography than the 90 AA as the 90AA is sharp enough. does the 90 f 2.0 in Chrome be more valuable? Thanks for your appreciate experience. et

-- Eric Tai (et107@netvigator.com), March 13, 2001

Answers

Eric, I think any of the recent Leica 90's are too sharp for flattering portraits of anyone over 10 years old. I use a Tiffen soft EFX 3 on my Elmarit whenever I do close up images of any adults, especially women. The consensus here has been the 90 f2.8 Elmarit is a better size for the M cameras, itself being even a bit on the bulky side. The chrome lenses are even heavier. Portaits taken at f2.8 within 3 to 5 feet have only inches of depth of field, and I almost never have had the need for that extra stop.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 13, 2001.

Eric:

I have not used a regular 90 Summicron f2, but I love my 90 SAA for portrait work -- the Bokeh in the out-of-focus areas makes for a superb "ambiance" in the images. However, as Andrew stated, it is VERY sharp -- maybe too much so for some subjects. I have been using it primarily with children and young teens.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 13, 2001.

I take a somewhat contrarian viewpoint to the whole issue of Leica M for portraiture. For the planned, set-up type of portraiture I much prefer a tripod-mounted Hasselblad, where I'm not glued to a viewfinder and can interact with my subject face-to-face. For candid photography I much prefer an autofocus camera where I can shoot fast, even from the hip, with a medium-tele at wider apertures (still not wide open, for me there isn't enough DOF)where zone focusing doesn't work. For this reason, neither the older 90/2 (which I owned and sold) nor the 90AA fills my needs. As a general-photography lens, the 90/2.8 is the best I've ever used (either in R or M mount), followed by the "skinny" 90 T-E.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

I have no experience with the 90 AA, so I can't make any direct comparisons between it and the older lens. My older version (circa '71) is slightly soft at f2 relative to its performance stopped down (though still quite sharp). As noted by others, for close up portraits, you'll usually be stopped down a little to provide sufficient depth of field--I doubt there would be a dramatic difference in performance between the old and new versions under these conditions.

The wider maximum aperture of the Summicron (vs. Elmarit) is quite useful is low light levels and when you want a blurred background in 3/4 or full-length shots.

The older 90 Summicrons are a bargain by Leica standards--black ones in excellent condition can often be found for about US$500 on eBay.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2001.

Mike:

Cute dogs!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 13, 2001.

Very cute dogs!

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), March 14, 2001.

Yeah, they look cute, but the white one bit me.

Unfortunately, the model didn't even nibble. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 14, 2001.